Re: Group order for "Secret Power" ... (San Francisco Bay Area only)

[attila@primenet.com]

In <v03007800aea4b053298a@[207.167.93.63]>, on 11/05/96 
   at 12:53 AM, "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> said:

.At 1:14 PM -0800 11/4/96, Ernest Hua wrote:
.>I'm looking for 19 other people interested in "Secret Power" (Craig
.>Potton Publishers has indicated that there is a discount for 20 or
.>more copies).  If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, please
.>contact me by phone or E-Mail.

.Just wondering...doesn't such a call for a group purchase of such a
.dangerous book constitute a RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Crypto
.Organizations Act) violation?

.--Tim May

        I trust your RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and "Crypto" 
    Organizations Act) is tongue in cheek?   The original title was
    "Corrupt" not "Crypto," though I am sure our friendly 'rules for
    them and rules for us' racketeering influenced corrupt organization
    for a government could define it whatever it to suit their
    purpose....

        as to the suggestion/question --how would you contstruct the
    group purchase of a book to involve RICO?   "racketeering" is 
    defined as a criminal association whose purpose is to intimidate 
    others and to deny them theor pursuit of the American dream... 
    (over-simplified).

        maybe they could try "conspiracy" under Title 18 in general,
    maybe attached to "treason?"  -the ACLU would have a field day; and,
    I, for one, would sign up just to get charged with that in mind 
    --even fully understanding that only in the US can you be convicted 
    of the thought of "comspiring" to perform a criminal action.
 
        surprised I am not sent to jail every time I pass a luscious
    expression of feminity or 'hot potato.'  <g>

        although the book is not published here (probably from pressure
    applied by the spooks), the book is not _banned_ here which would be 
    rather difficult to get past the first federal judge, regardless of
    any Jamie Gorelock sniveling claims to national security needs and
    requirements or any of the usual drivel,

        I've seen and been there on stretching the meaning of the 
    charge, both more than one; I've seen feds lie on the stand 
    regarding Miranda and the fifth --and get away with it because their
    credibility is still supreme in the courts 

        the feds still to need some form of charge that is
    "understandable;" and, some compliance with a tame charge --even if
    false, or they expose themselves to the revelation of even more
    information, none of which they want on the table.  trying _us_ on 
    the allegations contained in the book would be a bonanza for us with
    the first evidentiary round!  what a feast!   --no way will the 
    funny farm open up on that one.

        Secondly, even if they charged us, they would be on the defense 
    to try and prove we were "treasonous"  --and they would be trotting 
    out lots of dirty laundrey for the judge, jury, and press (who 
    probably could not give a shit).

        any comment, Brian?
        any comment, Greg?
        any comment, Unicorn?
        any comment, Firssel?
 
--
one of the few things we all share: 
  the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.

--
  Politicians are like diapers.
    They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.




--
one of the few things we all share: 
  the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials.

--
  Politicians are like diapers.
    They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason.